"Americanisms" that Brits hate

That is NOT my POV that is your interpretation of what I posted that you set in italics to make it LOOK like a quote of mine.

 

Well actually, neither were playwrights. Gilbert was a librettist, and Sir Arthur was a composer. But when I used the term 'English culture', I was really referring to the culture of English speaking peoples, not specifically those of the British isles. Within that overall culture, Gilbert and Sullivan comic operetta is iconic, irrespective of whether one is in Edinburgh, London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto or New York. I simply would have expected one as knowledgeable and well read as yourself to know their works.

LOL, nicely put. But, never mind, mummy always told me to be kind to those less fortunate than myself. Seriously though, my reference to schoolboys was in respect of my expectation that you would have encountered the works of G&S at high school, at the latest. It is very light hearted stuff, eminently suited to, and very popular with, kids.

Very fun? LOL, I would get into all shades of trouble if I were to use that variety of grammar.

Well, I don't know about a great number, but I do keep in close contact (via e-mail and telephone) with a number of Americans, in California, Texas, Oregon, and Kansas. All of whom know and love Gilbert & Sullivan operetta. But then, I expect they are not card carrying Anglophobes - so you are excused.

 

It's called paraphrasing what you said. Anyone can read the forum to see that it is accurate. It seems that you do now realize what nonsense it us and are now wriggling to get out of it. LOL

 

Leo is a class act. I myself have been living in the colonies far too long. Which is why I would use such a vulgar phrase.

 

In this context the one for which they are best known, certainly, although it should be noted that Gilbert was also a playwright (and, aside from the Operetta work, Sullivan was also a writer of hymn tunes, most famously 'Onward, Christian soldiers').

Performances of Gilbert and Sullivan works are, and have always been, at least as popular in the USA as in the UK (including, I believe, school performances). There are many G&S societies/companies (pro and amateur, large and small) performing regularly around the US. Based in California alone, for example, there are at least Lamplighters (San Francisco), Opera a la Carte (Los angeles), Lyric Theatre (San Jose), Ventura County Gilbert and Sullivan Repertoire Company (Thousand Oaks), and those are just ones with easily locatable web pages, from the first page of a Google search, and that, of course, doesn't cover the many school and university performances/societes.

G&S works have been hugely influential in culture on both sides of the attlantic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_and_Sullivan#Cultural_influence

I'd put money on most people being familiar with much more Gilbert and Sullivan than they realise, too. Songs have appeared in Star Trek movies, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Animaniacs (they did a whole episode of it), etc., etc.:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNZw2P3gzNg"]Animaniacs[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCJZIwb9no"]Family Guy[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyyjCn1ML3k"]Star Trek: Insurrection[/ame]

And then there are things like this, with people setting different words to famous G&S tunes:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYW50F42ss8"]Tom Lehrer - The Elements [/ame]

And those 4 examples are taken from only two of the G&S works, HMS Pinafore and The Pirates of Penzance - I would have though that The Mikado would be at least as familiar and as often quoted as those two ('Three Little Miads From School', 'I've Got a Little List', etc.).

When it comes to cultural influence on English-speaking peoples worldwide from theatrical works, Gilbert & Sullivan is probably second only to Shakespeare. It's hardly obscure stuff!

But of course all this is 'merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative'!

 

Indeed!

Yes, in spite of all my meekness,
If I have a little weakness,
It's a passion for a flight of thunderbolts!

 

Quote understandable having such passion for the weather against all odds. I mean, after all......

'I know no Courts of Chancery; I go by Nature's
Acts of Parliament. The bees--the breeze--the seas--the rooks--the
brooks--the gales--the vales--the fountains and the mountains cry,
"You love this maiden--take her, we command you!" 'Tis writ in heaven
by the bright barbed dart that leaps forth into lurid light from each
grim thundercloud. The very rain pours forth her sad and sodden
sympathy! When chorused Nature bids me take my love, shall I reply,
"Nay, but a certain Chancellor forbids it"? Sir, you are England's
Lord High Chancellor, but are you Chancellor of birds and trees, King
of the winds and Prince of thunderclouds?'

Personally, though, 'I am welling over with limpid joy! No sicklying taint of sorrow overlies the lucid lake of liquid love, upon which, hand in hand, Aline and I are to float into eternity.'

Enough of that! Gilbert did write some quite ridiculous (and quite deliberate) nonsense for his characters! He did try to do it, late on in their career (in the lesser known 'Utopia, Ltd), to poke subtle fun at Sullivan and his lofty hymns and so on, by giving him these pointless words to set to music:

"Eagle High in Cloudland soaring-- Sparrow twittering on a reed-- Tiger in the jungle roaring-- Frightened fawn in grassy mead-- Let the eagle, not the sparrow, Be the object of your arrow-- Fix the tiger with your eye-- Pass the fawn in pity by. Glory then will crown the day-- Glory, glory, anyway!"

Sullivan trumped him in spectacular style, though, with one of the greatest unaccompanied choral harmony pieces ever written (the video, by the way, is from a US production):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRDrE6FKmKo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRDrE6FKmKo[/ame]

Even trumping his own earlier 'Hail Poetry' (another US production video), also accompanying some of Gilbert's more deliberately inane and silly words:

'Hail, Poetry, thou heav'n-born maid! Thou gildest e'en the pirate's trade. Hail, flowing fount of sentiment! All hail, all hail, divine emollient!'

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoTrjyW0IWE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoTrjyW0IWE[/ame]

There has never been a composer who could write vocal harmony like Sullivan, and probably never will be. The word 'genius' is often over-used, of course, but the Gilbert and Sullivan works are one of the very rare occasions where the term is fully appropriate for both parties involved. The only problem, of course, is that the most often heard material tend to be songs that highlight Gilbert's talents (where Sullivan deliberately kept his own scoring light, so the words could be heard as clearly as possible). When Sullivan really let go (as he regularly did, but for the peak of his talents I'd recommend Yeomen of the Guard, Iolanthe, Princess Ida, Gondoliers and (my personal favorite of them all) Ruddigore), the results can be pretty incredible:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyYbbGxmM8"]Yeoman of the Guard - Act 1 Finale(end) [/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ_kff3cXDk"]Ruddigore - Ghost Scene[/ame]

 

This is one of my fave G&S numbers - appropriately performed by a bunch of sixth formers (and their housemaster). With the magnificence of piano accompaniment, hardly professional but rather fun.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rbcxv-hhxs"]6. March of the Peers - YouTube[/ame]

 

It's a great piece to sing - the second tenor line to the 'as upon our lordly way...' line in particular is one of my personal favorite lines to sing (although the sudden jump from the B flat at the end up to the G flat of the 'tan-tan-tara' (for all the tenors) is not exactly my favorite part of it, but at least you escape the top tenor A flat after that!), in fact - its one of those harmony lines that makes the whole thing work, and is a joy to hear everything else fit around as you sing it (and it irritates me intensely when some people think they can get away without having the second tenor line, which thankfully they didn't in that video!).

 

Well I think that Leo and cynydd have put you right on much of this garbage. I, however, am not so demanding as them. I don't expect you to know Gilbert and Sullivan. I did however give you a heads up as to my "Union Jack waving" as you put it when I replied to you:

With this, if you did me the courtesy of actually reading what I wrote in reply to your posts, I highlighted to you directly that any flag waving might be ironic, and to anyone who thought about it for two seconds it would be clear that my signature is a skit on blind patriotism. Maybe the reason you missed it is because your country is so full of ********s who are strangely "proud to be American" and who would sing such a song about their Americanism with a straight face even though they made no decision to become such and are only such by an accident of their birth. The whole concept of pride in one's nationality is a risable concept.

Based on that, your whole abuse of me for being a British nationalist - even though I have made it clear to you several times already that I am not - is a reflection that you just don't get it and just - in your explicitly stated anglophobia - just hate (or fear, this being the meaning of "phobia") anyone British. This makes us all subject to your prejudiced stereotype whatever our beliefs and point of view. Anything that doesn't fit your nice little caricature you will ignore, as you clearly did here. This is why it is bigotry. I don't expect you to see it.

It seems that empty personal abuse is all you have left.

I did not say it was not grammatically correct. I said it was horrible English, as it was.

For something to be determined as having a "British" characteristic, it is not necessary to have a referendum of the general populace to seek their approval. The American Revolution itself was only supported by a minority of the American population, according to American historians. All change comes from minorities, and the American Revolution was entirely in the tradition of English liberalism, or indeed tradition going back centuries, even to the Dark Ages, of the people setting themselves up in opposition to the monarch and his representatives. In more recent times to 1776 the traditions of the Levellers and their struggles against both the King and the Cromwellian elite, were entirely consistent with the demands of the American Revolution - as I have already pointed out. The SCOTUS has itself paid tribute to the authority and precedent in US law of writings such as the Agreement of the People of England written in 1647 as the basis for the US Constitution. You choose to ignore these arguments to indulge in your personal stereotyping, but the shallowness of your position is clear for all to see.

I have already clearly said that a European Project would be a more accurate description. I have of course never denied the role of Americans in the American Revolution.

I don't say that Britain did any of the lifting. Of course British troops, on orders from their German King, tried to destroy the American Revolution.

That use of the word "decisive" again is conceding my point. Thank-you.

The British population did no such thing. Are you suggesting that Britain was a perfect democracy in 1776. I do not think so.

It was particularly strong amongst post Reformation English protestants - the radical tradition that spawned American Revolutionaries later on - when England was linked to Rome to give it a historical myth to counterbalance Popish baubles, gargoyles and other superstition.

Firstly it is the exception that proves my point. Secondly other European powers had done nothing of the sort. They were overwhelmingly Catholic, hostile to science, vehemently anti-democratic to the extent that they abhorred any form of representation, and were economically stagnant. With the exception of the Netherlands perhaps. As go bein a British exceptionalist, this is just abuse. When you deny being an American exceptionalist, I concede, paying you the respect of accepting your statement at face value. The adolescent churlishness of your posts where you continue to force your prejudiced stereotypes on me whether they fit or not, is just pathetic.

I do of course notice that you haven't got a King, although I also notice that it was Washington's strength of character that prevented many Americans crowning him as such.

What a pile of codswallop! The whole point of the American Revolution was to change the legal system. And they did, by taking what they inherited from England and improving it. The rule of law is clearly a tradition that emerged in England as a counterbalance to the rule of the King. It evolved over a long, long time. It did not evolve in anything like the same way outside England where the edicts of the State trumped the common law of the people. The French adopted a whole new legal system (Code Napoleon) after their revolutions wholly at odds with the common law system, that now dominates most democracies, because common law had not been part of their tradition of struggle. This reflects the very different nature of the French Revolution to the American one.

The common law system was a legal system which for centuries, through the precedent of the tradition of the people and the triumph of the "common" man over royal decree, had limited the power of both the monarch and the aristocracy. This is why American jurists hold Magna Carta and habeas corpus for example as central tenets of American law, because these are cornerstones of this evolving English tradition. They represent the rights of the individual to resist the will of the State. The force of precedent is also use to temper the power of the monarch. This - the common law system - is entirely a legal system that is used in Britain and its former Empire, from the United States, to Hong Kong. It simply does not exists outside this "imperial" geography. It is a very strong part of British tradition - popular tradition at that - which has been adopted by post colonial states as a central part of their progress towards freedom and liberty.

 

Of course. Phobias against people purely based on their nationality, are forms of bigotry. What else would they be? Enlightened scientific discovery?

I don't think it is possible to convince someone, who admits to the irrational bigotry of "anglophobia", of anything by employing rational argument. My citing of Churchill - I didn't even notice your signature - is part of me suggesting that my point of view - even though you may disagree with it - is not the preposterous nonsense that you smear it to be, but indeed has some precedent and is part of a long historical perspective. I certainly do not agree with everything Churchill wrote either. The Churchill reference is an aside. It is hardly central to my argument. Your rant was wholly unnecssary and bizarre.

And I will stay with Tom Paine's, and the principle of the universal rights of man (as opposed to rights of Americans that isolationists champion). I agree that the cause of America is indeed the "cause of all mankind". That's a direct quote from Paine. I think I need to point that out to you so you don't get the wrong end of the stick here.

You pointed to the hostility of France to American revolutionaries by citing the example of French aristocrats. As the French Revolution proved thirteen years after the Ameriucan Revolution, France was made up of far more than its aristocrats, and had different elites - some revolutionary - ready to take control. Your definition of France in your early posts, was by reference to its aristocrats and monarch alone. I repeat: a country is not defined by its government or even its rulling class.

More groundless personal attack.

You need to get your Celtic company to enlighten you a little on reality. This anglophobia is just drivelly ignorance isn't it. Scottish and Welsh people regularly express their will to remain part of the United kingdom through the democratic process. Your prejudice is just pathetic.

Are you being disingenous here or do your really not follow a simple argument. I am English because I was born and grew up in England. Actually I am half English and half Irish (roughly) by ancestry. My father was 100% Irish by ancestry but born in England. He, like 99% of people like him, would describe himself as English. You should know how much Irish people laugh at "Irish Americans" who claim to be Irish (I actually have been to Irealand and know some real Irish people begorrah). They are American, of Irish descent, in the same way that I am English, of Irish descent.

The point is simple: Americans have a diverse ancestry, inlcuding anglo-saxon, scandanavian, German, Irish and other stock. So do the English. We are a mongrel nation, undefined by race, in the same way America is. And our genetic make up is very, very close indeed.

This is utter drivel. English is a nationality. It is not a "race", whatever that ghastly President of yours that I quoted said. This has been endlessly documented on this thread.

Whta does this garbage mean. So what? And?

I don't say anglo saxon race. You are just making this up now. Is this your straw man argument? What garbage. "Anglo-saxon" is a shorthand for describing the commonalities of the English and American nations. It is mainly used abusively by the French. Of course it is innacurate as a racial epiteth, but that is not its main usage. Usually it applies to the legal systems, the accounting systems, the stock market nature of our capitalist systems (distinct from bank driven capitalism in continental Europe), the political penchant for nation building, and perhaps, jealously by the French, by the fact that Britain and America have periodically been allies which have helped them resist and defeat Germany.

Britain and America are made up of many different "races", but remarkably, the racial make up of each is very similar.

 

So much for that...

 

Oppenheimer points out - to my mind convincingly - that the majority of British people everywhere in Britain (and the Irish in Ireland too) are descended from the people who followed the retreating ice north from Euskadi many long years ago, so that if there were such things as 'races' other than simply the human ours would be be Basque. He reckons the number of current British showing an 'Anglo-Saxon' genetic heritage is about five per cent. Any attempt to establish the background of the US population is pure nonsense because based on 'own knowldege'. I always remember the story of the New York girl who said, 'My father comes from Car-diff. He's Slavish, I guess'.

 

This thread is over the 500 limit it is now closed. You may start another if you would like to continue the debate.